tv [untitled] March 8, 2011 7:00am-7:30am PST
2011, land use meeting. joining me is supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener. our clerk is -- clerk: items will appear on the march 15 board of superi answers agenda, as otherwise stated. -- the board of supervisors and agenda, unless otherwise stated. -- the board of supervisors' agenda. supervisor mar: i also want to thank sfgtv for televising us today. could you please read item number one? clerk: an ordinance amending the
it should be changed. in fact, that is the only item in your ordnance today under this item. those specific ones were changed. this is the market octavia plan with the board of supervisors, what they thought they did in 2008. supervisor mar: so this is just clearing that up? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: questions, colleagues? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: the property owners that have been impacted, have they been contacted? >> yes, thee mark -- the market octavia plan had extensive
outreach, so that occurred, as well as the required mailed ordinance. for the ordinance in front of you today, we did another notice to the property owners of the area shown in black. supervisor wiener: have there been any responses? >> not to the planning department. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor mar: let's open this up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? so moved and seconded without objection, with a positive recommendation. that means just double-check. do we need to do the committee report? -- let me just double-check. no. so moved.
madam clerk, could you please call item number two? clerk: this is an ordinance amending the san francisco planning coat and the zoning control table in the upper -- san francisco planning code and the zoning control table in the upper fillmore. >> lifting the ban on new restaurants in the upper filllmore -- fillmore district. this allows some to come into the area as a restaurant. this is in response to a 1987 piece of legislation, which banned new restaurants in the upper fillmore area, and right
now, we have vacant areas. this would allow them to come into the neighborhoods and really shore up some of the empty storefronts. as part of the conditional use permit, the planning commission would also take a look at the détente usage of these potential new restaurants, -- take a look at the potential usage of these potential new restaurants. that was something that was very important. i have met with the fillmore organization and another, which are the main merchant bodies and neighborhood. i have met with the number of restaurateur's, so we will be doing that. second of all, today, i am going
to introduce an amendment to clarify some technical language in the language -- legislation regarding some of the restaurant classifications. again, a very technical amendment, not substantive. we do not have to continue it. we cannot approve it today. i would be happy to answer any questions -- we could approve it today. supervisor mar: so, supervisor farrell, the revisions or the amendments, could you just give us a little bit about -- they are just technical, and they are not substantive, but, in general, what are the amendments, just so we know? >> -- supervisor farrell: this is where it applies, and also says that bars can come in only when they are attached to new
restaurants, and it is clarify the language around that. the merchants and the neighbors were not in favor of opening it up two new restaurants only. other things were ok, -- eyeopening give-ups -- opening in upper -- it up to new restaurants only. supervisor mar: the merchants are supportive, and even though there is fast food on here, those supported by the local merchants could be allowed. that is my understanding. supervisor farrell: when i first thought of "fast-food," i thought of mcdonald's. we would eliminate some restaurants that are typically classified as fast food in the
code that we would want in the area, and there are some restaurants around pacific heights in the marine and that technically meet that definition. -- around pacific heights and the marina that technically meet that definition. s great. thank you. i do not see any questions. let's open this up for comment. supervisor farrell, you have at least one card. supervisor farrell: denise tran. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is denise tran. we are characterized as a large
fast-food restaurant, and this conversation is really relevant to me and directly impacts me and my business, and i am here to speak in support of the supervisor's legislation. i think the discussion of fast food, i think everybody always thinks of mcdonald's. i did, too. that just happens to be the characterization. it basically means, large, being over a certain square footage, you are characterized as large, and for us, we are quick casual, meaning that we do not have servers, meaning that you come in, you order, and someone will bring your food out to you, which is very common oon f -- on fillmore street.
many restaurants on fillmore street do that. and my restaurant is a vietnamese gourmet shop, and we are attempting to create 20 to 25 full and part-time jobs there, and currently what is going on is that i have a prohibition on my use that prohibits me from getting a beer and wine license, although i am primarily a lunch location. we cannot release survive on fillmore street, and getting a beer and wine license -- [bell] >> i am sorry. i am over my time.
i wrote to the planning department to ask to see how i could get this restriction removed, and i was told that currently the status quo is depth i wrote -- is that through the conditional use the process, i would have to change to a full-service restaurant first before i could apply for the beer and wine rest -- license, which does not make sense, because i do not have any servers, so i was told that if this particular legislation passes, then i could get the type 41 license. so that is kind of where i am act, and i am hoping that you guys will support his legislation -- so that is kind of where ibm -- where i am at. supervisor mar: is there anyone
else from the public who would like to speak? please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is demetrius. i am president of a musical and cultural association. we air -- are a nonprofit organization of artists, and generally dedicated to preserving arts, culture, in music -- and music here in san francisco. we would like to fully support supervisor farrell's legislation. we think this is great not only for the upper fillmore area but for san francisco. for san francisco to maintain its status, its colón mill in
world -- its culinary world, it is great to encourage these kinds of businesses, particularly as we prepare for the america's cup coming to san francisco in a few years and all of the hospitality and tourism boom that that will include. also, i would like to speak as an entrepreneur. my friends and i own some bars and restaurants, and we would like to have the opportunity to explore this in the upper fillmore area. it may not be possible to the expense -- the extent that it could be considered, the conditional use process could be prohibitive to entry because of a long timelines associated with
approval, so just as an entrepreneur who would like to eliminate barriers of entry, if possible, not just for me but for others, i think that would be great. if you could take a look at that also. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. sir? >> ♪ let's hear it for the fillmore let's give it a hand let's hear it for land use and all your plans the budget is going to get big and grote -- gorw -- grow let's hear it for the fillmore and the plan it is going to get big and grow
let's hear it for the city let's hear it for the fillmore let's hear it for the land use and ollie were city plans -- and all your city plans whoa, whoa, whoa, let's hear it for the city let's hear it for all of your plans you are going to understand oooooooo ♪ supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else on the public who would like to speak or sing? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> there was an earlier similar ordinance in january, right
around the time of the transition, and at that time, they did recommend modifications, and the supervisor did include allow large -- did include large fast- food restaurants. just for people who do not understand the definition, a large fast-food service, it is a bit outmoded to try to regulate will we can now regulate fairly well with another control, so the planning department is in the process of revising our restaurant definitions, but we do not feel that the large fast- food definition would really be a problem in this instance, in everything would be permitted by -- and everything would be permitted by a c.u. they also thank you for your outreach. supervisor mar: it sounds like miss tran's restauranteur
business is positively impacted by this legislation -- restaurant or business is positively impacted by this legislation? >> yes. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: are you able to address her? >> there is alcohol in this case, and what we recommend it is that she could try another restaurant type, just by switching the business model a little bit. it would be allowed to sell alcohol. or we suggested she could wait until the legislation sponsored by supervisor farrell was passed, and then she could see it as a large fast-food restaurant. -- she could seek it as a large fast-food restaurant.
supervisor mar: i can see the vacancies from the fillmore hardware to elsewhere. i really applaud supervisor farrell for moving this forward. any other comments, colleagues? so on the amendments, without objection on the amendments? [gavel] then, is there a motion on the item? so it is moved with a positive recommendation. thanks. thank you, everyone. madam clerk, please call item no. 3. clerk: item 3, an ordinance amending the sentences, planning code -- the san francisco
planning code section 409. supervisor mar: i believe that mr. yarne is here? >> taken as a whole, these amendments further strengthen the development impact legislation that was previously approved by the board, unanimously approved by the board of supervisors, in june of last year. actually, it was not unanimous. it was a 10-1 vote. these do a few things. first, they clean up vestiges of old language that were left over that we did not catch in the first round, and that language clarifies, these changes clarify about the issuance of first -- as defined in the building code. you'll see substantial changes throughout this draft, where we
have left in all language, and it has been replaced with first construction document. -- left in old language. there were adjustments in section 409 of a planning codes, and if you remember back one year ago, -- in section 409 of the planning code. there was a summary of how many fees we have collected, how many in-kind improvements, so you get a global look at how our impact fee is working or is not working, as the case may become and as part of the report, we suggested there be an annual adjustment to correct for inflation. you may also recall, we did not have an automatic inflation adjustments, so many fees have grown stale and in some cases have fallen below the break that
is actually appropriate for the service -- fallen below the rate. to summarize, these changes make it clear that all adjustments for inflation must be implemented by january 1 of every year. two, that the infrastructure inflation adjustment itself must be published on november 1 each year by the capital planning committee, and also, which is not obvious in the language, that notice be given no later than december 1 every year prior to the january 1 of the adjustments taking place, so that is what all of these changes do. and then two other small technical things. we also asked that the mayor's office on housing also have their fee adjustments be published in the same report and done at the same time. you'll see some language affecting sections 413 and 450
of the planning code, -- 413 and 415. finally, there is some additional language related to the market opctav -- octavia. unfortunately, some things were removed, and they have been put back in place. finally, there are some uncodified sections that would allow something to occur in april this year because we missed the previous cycle. that is at the very end of the legislation, and we would also exempt any fees that have been recently done. there is a city-wide impact fees study done by -- as required by the impact act, and we will not
require that that phoebe adjusted -- that that fee be adjusted, but everything will be updated as one effort in the future, and that will give the land use committee and the planning commission eight view on the total development requirements so that you can make decisions more strategically. there is one requested change that i failed to mention. we need to add on page 18 of the packet, it has to do with the timing of the mayor's office on housing, publishing their proposed annual fee adjustments. if you go to line 5 of page 18 of the legislation, instead of singing commencing on january 1, 2012, -- instead of saying commencing on january 1, 2012, we would like to change that,
and continue on that line, no later than november 1 -- excuse me, december 1 of each year. so this is it a -- this is aligning things. the report must be circulated by december 1. there was a mistake in the way this was drafted. supervisor mar: so mr. yarne, can you repeat the page and line number again? >> yes, changing january 1, 2012, and then continuing on in the sentence, where it says january 1 of each year, december 1 of each year. supervisor mar: maybe pages are not aligning with my copy. >> i am sorry. ok, section 413.6, sub b, first
line, sub b. apologies. the print out must be different. supervisor mar: ok. >> are you able to find that? section 413.6. supervisor mar: and i think on my copy, it is page 17, but i have the dates, setting different dates for the deadlines. >> that is right. do we have corrected copies on file with the clerk? -- correct copies? we want to change it from january to december 1. changing it to december 1, 2011, and then the second change changes january to december.
it currently says january 1. we would like to change it to december 1 of each year. supervisor mar: ok. i think on my copy, it is page 17, 19, so there is. thank you. -- so there it is. any other comments, mr. yarne? >> no, and i am available for comments. i think the planning department has something. supervisor mar: thank you. miss rogers? >> ms. rogers, from the planning department. they heard this and recommended approval. without further modifications. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, are there questions? and thank you, mr. yarne for
addressing the clean-up language. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, on the amendments, without objection? i have a motion on the item? supervisor wiener: i move forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: madam clerk, anything else? clerk: no, mr. chairman. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone. meeting is adjourned.